Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Discussion in 'World Armed Forces' started by tphuang, Mar 24, 2006.

  1. Anlsvrthng
    Offline

    Anlsvrthng Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    969
    Likes Received:
    184
    Issue with ship manufacturing ability could be only secondary.

    That could gives month rather years to the schedule .

    It is more likely issue with the supply chain, probably many cases they have to make companies from nothing to manufacture parts.

    That can increase the lead time and cost by magnitude(s).

    And the naval stuff could be fourth priority compared to strategic / land and air forces.
     
  2. Brumby
    Offline

    Brumby Major

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,011
    Likes Received:
    3,218
    Russian UCAV Project Suffers One-Year Delay
    Source : Aerospace Daily & Defense Report May 23, 2019
    upload_2019-5-24_14-10-17.png
     
    Air Force Brat and TerraN_EmpirE like this.
  3. Gloire_bb
    Offline

    Gloire_bb Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    631
    Likes Received:
    636
    According to TASS, it made first "jump"(not a flight yet!) exactly today.
    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6470291/

    Fun thing, technically okhotnik is a volation of INF.
    But good friend will always provide a timely help.
     
  4. Brumby
    Offline

    Brumby Major

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,011
    Likes Received:
    3,218
    Remember to remind me when it actually makes its first flight.
     
    Air Force Brat likes this.
  5. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    11,628
    Likes Received:
    10,023
    Drones is disputed. The Russians argued that they were violations of the treaty the US argued otherwise.
    I favor the US on this as unless it’s a suicide drone it’s not a missile it’s a aircraft. Like a fighter bomber, and INF doesn’t restrict Sea or Air launched weapons in this class hence Naval Tomahawk or B52 launched cruise missiles are not touched. Because the Drone launches the weapons it employs its an aircraft.

    Other areas are less clear.
    The US points to the SSC8 Satain 2 missile as a violation and the RS26 as Russian violations.
    The Russians retorted that the Hera Target missile, Drones and the Aegis ashore batteries are violations. The Hera as it sits in the range. And Aegis because they claim that it could be armed with Tomahawk naval cruise missiles. The US states that the system was knocked down to prevent that.
     
    Brumby and Air Force Brat like this.
  6. Gloire_bb
    Offline

    Gloire_bb Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    631
    Likes Received:
    636
    It required definition in a treaty, because it still was against its letter. (and, honestly, in theory was exploitable:just add a wheel to cruise missile and it's a drone...it's just so poorely designed what it never really comes back).
    And any such definition brought a risk of restrictions. US side always walked away from it, partially, because drones were their exclusive toy.
    The US side claimed it wasn't coded to accept tomahawks: launchers are the same.
    If not laughable enough (uploading new program isn't exactly a hard or noticeable from the oustide), no russian inspections were permitted(great irony here is, it wasn't even US position, it was a veto from... Poland).
    From that point on, any russian weapon development apologist shows this, every time, and he is basically unretortable.
    "No secret cia reports or "reliable sources say", just open google maps and see yourself, how evil yankees threaten a naive apologist who is you."
     
    #6686 Gloire_bb, May 25, 2019 at 8:28 AM
    Last edited: May 25, 2019 at 8:41 AM
  7. anzha
    Offline

    anzha Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2018
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    206
    IIRC, the US did invite Russia to inspect the Romanian Aegis Ashore.

    https://www.armscontrol.org/taxonomy/term/18?page=1
     
  8. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    11,628
    Likes Received:
    10,023
    Not just the US but Any drone making nation. Any MALE drone would fit that interpretation of a the system even if it doesn’t fly NAP of the earth. And no adding landing gear wouldn’t change a missile to a drone. The key difference was that one had a warhead the other didn’t.
    The US was suing recon drones with INF ranges before the treaty and after to.
    Then came Predators with missiles but the missile still makes the kill. Again like an aircraft. If we go by the interpretation set of them as INF missiles then fighter bombers and bombers and armed helicopters are all manned GLCM.
     
    Brumby likes this.
  9. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,058
    Likes Received:
    1,063
    Drones back then were used for reconnaissance or target practice purposes only. They were not armed.

    I would argue that an unmanned armed drone platform is not that different from a cruise missile. If the argument is that a warhead is in a separate vehicle, what to say about multi-stage cruise missiles then? Where is the line?

    What the US could claim is that the drones can't carry nuclear payloads yet. But given modern drone platforms I wouldn't bet on that being the case anymore.
    Still while you could argue about the drones there is no argument with regards to AEGIS ashore.
    The software changes aren't verifiable without an intrusive inspection scheme which I doubt the US would be amenable to.
     
    #6689 gelgoog, May 25, 2019 at 2:17 PM
    Last edited: May 25, 2019 at 2:23 PM
  10. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    20,794
    Likes Received:
    26,402
Loading...

Share This Page